Template talk:Connected contributor

Template:Connected contributor is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

To discuss conflict of interest problems with specific editors and articles, please go to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.

Users who have been paid to edit Wikipedia must disclose this fact when discussing proposed changes to WP:COI or related pages.

This template was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Keep, 2018 March 10, see discussion. merge with Notable Wikipedian, 28 March 2010, see discussion. no consensus, 28 August 2008, see discussion. keep, 2 November 2006, see discussion. keep, 23 September 2005, see discussion.

Archives

1, 2, 3

Threads older than 120 days may be archived by Lowercase sigmabot III, but only when more than five topics are present.

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.

Uses of this template that have |editedhere=no and also a value for |checked= for the same user indicate an error, as if the user has not contributed to the article, there is nothing to check. Could we create a check and maintenance category for this issue? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb Related to this and User:jlwoodwa's request below: I see Category:Articles with connected contributors has 17K+ entries and wonder if having subcategories to separate direct vs. indirect editing would be helpful. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a massive 17,000-article category, so yes, I'd say it'd definitely be helpful to diffuse. In addition to |editedhere=yes vs. no, we could also diffuse by whether the edits have been checked or not. However, it gets complicated fast because of the possibility of multiple connected contributors. (Also, there's the possibility that the connected contributor has edited more recently than the check, but that gets to a flaw of this template's design.)

Any further discussion on that should take place in another thread, though, since it's rather separate from the error check I am requesting here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else'll have to take the idea and run with it. From a technical perspective, I don't really know what I'm proposing. I just think there's a big difference between a connected contributor who has worked on the article vs. one who has not, and right now they are all being lumped into a single category. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer, I've implemented diffusion, with articles directly edited by contributors now going to Category:Articles edited by connected contributors, which should gradually populate. I've also implemented the check I requested at the top of this section, going to Category:Pages using connected contributor with conflicting parameters. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 22:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb, your recent edits to this template seem like an error to me. Coding:

{{error|Error: Disclosures that use the |checked= parameter should also use |editedhere=yes for at least one contributor.}}Category:Pages using connected contributor with conflicting parameters

indicates that the act of populating Category:Pages using connected contributor with conflicting parameters is an error in itself; i.e. the category should be kept clear at all times. Are you working on clearing it? There are over 250 members – and thus over 250 errors demanding immediate attention.

Looking at one of them, Talk:Debbie Gibson, I see that there is only one contributor, who has indeed contributed to the article.

Your assertion that this use of the template that has |editedhere=no is wrong:

{{Connected contributor|checked=31 July 2021 by TJRC|user=BuzzEntPR|declared=no}}

They have simply omitted the parameter, not used it to lie. I think you should assume that unless they explicitly declare that they have not edited the article, that they indeed have edited the article. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wbm1058! 250 errors on a template with 18,000 transclusions doesn't seem like a particularly high rate to me. The way I interpret the documentation, |editedhere=yes should always be used if the user has edited, never assumed — we could just as easily assume that omitting it means the user has not edited, which creates ambiguity. The banner language and category also will not be changed unless the parameter is used. Sdkb ^talk 18:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb: The way I interpret the documentation, your reading comprehension needs improvement. "(optional)" does not mean required.

|editedhere=

Yes/no parameter (optional). If the COI editor has edited the present article, enter "yes".

If you want to populate your new category Category:Pages using connected contributor with conflicting parameters, so that someone may, at their leisure, next month or next year, work to clear the category by filling in this optional parameter, then fine. I object to elevation of this optional parameter to a requirement, omission of such is a hard {{error}} demanding top-priority attention. Just populating the category, with a warning message, should be sufficient.– wbm1058 (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand optional to mean that the parameter is not required in all uses of the template, but it should still always be used where it applies. Sdkb ^talk 02:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't "blocked" be more common? Today there's also partial blocks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, based on community feedback, I am adding this template to the talk pages of pages that I've edited. Is there a way to link to my userpage for the COI declaration? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can add the |otherlinks= parameter of {{connected contributor}} to add a wikilink (e.g., |otherlinks=COI declarations:[[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)#Conflict of Interest statements]]) or a full URL (e.g., |otherlinks=COI declarations:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rachel_Helps_(BYU)#Conflict_of_Interest_statements]). These examples link just to your "Conflict of Interest statements" section, but you could link to each specific COI statement section as appropriate. Alternatively, the |declared= parameter can be added to place the diff # (i.e., "oldid" number) of a specific edit that adds/changes a COI declaration, but if you change the COI declaratation subsequently, you'd need to update the diff # wherever you specified it.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 19:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I notice at Talk:Monero that user1 through user10 have all been claimed, so a second duplicate template has been added to hold the overflow. Would it be practical to expand the template to allow for more users? Grayfell (talk) 04:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ideal coding would allow indefinitely many connected contributors to be declared without repeating the code internally. I'd support a switch to that, but I'd oppose increasing the number by copy-pasting further, as more than 10 is very rare, and there is an associated maintenance burden with longer code. Sdkb ^talk 18:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Description of suggested change: For each instance of the word "article", add a switch so that the template displays the proper namespace.

Diff:

voorts (talk/contributions) 21:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 03:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]